I don't think for a moment that Hicks is innocent. But that's hardly the point. The question is, is David Hicks a danger to the USA and Australia? If he is, then WTF is he being allowed out in just a few months? If he is not, i.e. if it really is safe for Hicks to be allowed his freedom in a few months, then WTF was he detained for 5 years without charges, or a trial, or proper access to legal representation?

You cannot have it both ways. The reason that the USA and Australian governments justified keeping him, and others, in appalling conditions at Gitmo was that they were a danger to our society. Too much of a danger to even let the media have access. Too much of a danger to even let the Red Cross report on conditions there. If that's the case, then the plea deal and short sentence make no sense at all. The obvious conclusion is that the USA and Australian governments know fully well that Hicks does not pose a serios danger.

That does not mean he's not guilty of terrorist crimes, or of being a traitor. I, for one, would have liked to see him put up on public charges so that we could all know exactly what he did. We might then have had the chance of getting a real, legitimate conviction. As things stand, the whole thing is a joke. And a pox on the USA and Australian governments' legal reputations.

We Americans are proud to distinguish ourselves from one of those degenerate Western democracies where a terrorist can make some clever argument for innocence in front of a judge and get off scot free. In America you serve the sentence first and THEN you go to trial. And if you don't like it?

Under the terms of his plea deal, Hicks agreed to withdraw allegations he had been abused at the hands US personnel ...

Under the plea deal, Hicks will be required to "cooperate" with US intelligence agencies in the future and was banned from speaking to the media for one year about anything related to the charges he had faced, the judge said.

He was also banned from selling his story based on his terror-related experience or taking legal action against the United States.

As you see, we take the Geneva Convention very seriously, and we make absolutely certain that no whiff of disagreement with its terms will be heard.

The way this played out, we have been deprived not only of a legitimate public trial where we could find out what exactly Hicks did or did not do, but also of the opportunity to assess the legal status of confessions and information obtained by coercion (that is, by torture) as well as a number of other significant issues.

I also don't like it that they tried to get Hicks' American lawyer to sign a paper saying he would abide by all regulations of the so-called court he was preparing to argue in, while those regulations had not yet been written. What kind of court -- or country -- would demand a thing like that?